To: Members
of the HEC, Staff Senate, Personnel Policy Committee, and Others

Re: The
New Revision to the OU Physical Plant

Mandatory
Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy

23
July 2008

Background

OU
Physical Plant Administrators, for unknown reasons, have revised
their department’s drug testing policy, effective August 1,
attempting to redefine the term “safety sensitive positions”
in such a way that all, or nearly all, of their employees will be
subject to random drug tests. Since most of the affected employees
earn hourly wages, the proposal was brought to the attention of the
Hourly Employees Council for consideration at its July 9th
meeting. Upon examination and discussion, the HEC unanimously passed
a resolution “sternly” opposing the proposed change as
“ambiguous and ill-conceived”, and an Ad Hoc Committee
was formed to study the proposal and make recommendations.

Presently,
there are only four reasons for drug testing an employee here at OU:
1) Reasonable Suspicion or observation of drug use; 2) Post-Accident
testing; 3) Post-Rehabilitation testing; 4) Applicant testing. So, if
your Director notices that your eyes are glazed, your speech is
slurred, and you have the outline of a half-pint of Peppermint
Schnapps in your back pocket, there’s a good chance you’ll
be drug-tested. The same for having an accident in an OU vehicle,
upon returning from a chemical-dependency program, or if you’re
applying for a job. This system has been in place for many years, and
OU employees are well aware of it and follow it.

As
a member of the Hourly Employees Council, the Staff Senate, and the
Personnel Policy Committee, I am compelled by duty to comment on this
in writing before it goes into effect. There won’t be another
meeting of any of these OU Staff representative groups until
September, and even if there were there wouldn’t be enough time
at any single meeting to address all of the errors, ambiguities, and
outright illegalities of this outrageous document.

What
follows is the newly revised policy that will soon apply to Physical
Plant employees- if nothing is done to stop it - with my commentary.
Text which seems unobjectionable is in small type. Text which demands
comment is larger and in boldface. My comments are in italics between
paragraphs.

Be
patient. This is important.

02.03.010

June 1998

(Revised June
2008)

Alcohol and
Other Drug Testing

Definitions

1. “Confirmation test”
means a drug or alcohol test on a sample to substantiate the results
of a prior drug or alcohol test on the same sample and which uses
different chemical principles and is of equal or greater accuracy
than the prior drug or alcohol test.

3. “Alcohol or other drug
test” means a chemical test administered for the purpose of
determining the presence or absence of a drug or its metabolites or
alcohol in a person’s bodily tissue, fluids, or products.

4. “Medical Review Officer”
means a person, qualified by the State Board of Health, who is
responsible for receiving results from a testing facility which have
been generated by an employer’s drug or alcohol testing program
and who has knowledge and training to interpret and evaluate an
individual’s test results together with the individual’s
medical history and any other relevant information.

5. “Reasonable Suspicion”
means a belief that an employee is using or has used drugs or alcohol
in violation of the employer’s written policy drawn from
specific objective and articulable facts and reasonable inferences
drawn from those facts in light of experience, and may be based upon,
including, but not limited to:

a. Observable phenomena, such
as:

1. The physical symptoms or
manifestations of being under the influence of a drug or alcohol
while at work or on duty; or

2. The direct observation of drug
or alcohol use while at work or on duty.

b. A
report of drug or alcohol use while at work or on duty, provided by
reliable and credible sources, which have been independently
corroborated by a manager, supervisor, or other university
administrator.

c. Evidence that an individual
has tampered with a drug or alcohol test during his employment with
the current employer; or

d. Evidence that an employee is
involved in the use, possession, sale, solicitation, or transfer of
drugs while on duty or while on the employer’s premises or
operating the employer’s vehicle, machinery, or equipment.

“Sample”
means tissue, fluid, or product of the human body chemically capable
of revealing the presence of drugs or alcohol in the human body.

“Safety-sensitive positions” include, but are
not limited to, those for which possession of a valid driver’s
license or CDL are a requirement, or for which the maintenance or
operation of equipment may be associated with such life-threatening
risks as electrocution, combustion, explosion, or similar risks.

This
Definition 7 is the first in what will turn out to be a parade of
ambiguities and poor judgments. Federal law and the OU Staff Handbook
restrict the definition of “Safety-Sensitive Positions”
to those requiring a CDL or Pilot’s license. There is a reason
for this. Because a random drug test is an invasive search, courts
have held that they are only justified for positions which regularly
put the lives of others at risk – bus drivers, airline pilots,
truck drivers, soldiers, etc. Definition 7 is clearly an attempt to
subvert Federal law.

As
if that weren’t enough, the phrases “not limited to”
and “similar risks” make this definition completely
arbitrary, the primary ingredient of poor policy. Who ultimately
decides whether a clerk with an electric heater under her desk is
more of a combustion danger than a trained plumber with a blowtorch?

Purpose

The
University of Oklahoma Physical Plant considers its employees a
valuable asset to the operation of the University community as a
whole. Therefore, Physical Plant is concerned about thehealth, safety,
well-being, and
work performance of each of its employees. The use, abuse, or
dependence on chemical substancescan
seriously affect the health of an individualand
can jeopardize his or her own safety as well as the safety of others
in the workplace. Job performance also suffers when an employeeuses, abuses,
or is dependent upon chemical substances.

These
references to concerns for employees’ health and well being
ring hollow when it is realized that their purpose is to mask a
malicious intent. They are on the same level as the assurances of an
Inquisitor that the rack and bastinado are merely benign tools to
purge demons from the minds of heretics. The only true concern of any
honorable employer is the safe performance of an employee’s
job.

The
final sentence is an assertion of fact which is clearly false. The
word “can” or “may” should be inserted after
the word “performance”.

Knowing
these facts, The University of Oklahoma Physical Plant is committed
to providing its employees an alcohol and other drug free workplace.
It is Physical Plant’s policy to (1) assure that employees are
not impaired in their ability to perform assigned duties in a safe,
productive and healthy manner; (2) create a workplace environment
free from the adverse effects of drug and alcohol abuse or misuse;
(3) prohibit the unlawful manufacture, distribution,
dispensing, possession, or use of controlled substances;and (4) encourage
employees to seek professional assistance any time personal problems,
including alcohol or drug dependency, adversely affect their ability
to perform their assigned duties.

The
phrase “in or on OU property” needs to be added to this
clause. As written, it makes OU seem like a police agency or
legislative body rather than an academic institution.

If
a Physical Plant employee is found to be under the influence of
alcohol or other drug while on the job, as confirmed by a positive
result of the related alcohol or other drug test, such facts shall
constitute grounds for immediate termination, by reason of
misconduct, of employment of the individual. The employee will not
be eligible for rehire at the University for a minimum period of six
months. Any subsequent decision to permit eligibility for rehire
rests with the University’s Office of Human Resources. This
policy does not in any way constitute a contract or guarantee of
employment.

Applicability

Individuals
applying for continuous employment at Physical Plant shall be subject
to pre-employment drug testing upon a conditional offer of
employment. All Physical Plant continuous employees will be subject
to post-accident, post-rehabilitation and reasonable-suspicion
provisions of the policy, andall
employees in positions deemed to be safety-sensitiveshall be additionally
subject to the random-testing provisions of the policy.
Safety-sensitive positions include, but are not limited to, those for
which possession of a valid driver’s license or CDL are a
requirement, or for which the maintenance or operation of equipment
may be associated with such life-threatening risks as electrocution,
combustion, explosion, or the like. All employees of the Physical
Plant may be tested under this policy when deemed in the best
interests of the University.

Again,
who is doing the deeming here? Since the definition is open-ended, it
would seem that all
PP employees qualify as being in “Safety-Sensitive positions”,
and therefore all
should be subject to random testing. Or, does the definition depend
on the arbitrary whim of some PP administrative functionary?

Effective
Date

This
policy is effective June 1, 1998, as revised June 19, 2008. The
revised policy replaces previous policies, forms, and versions and is
effective August 1, 2008.

Manager and Supervisor Training

All managers and supervisors
will receive formal training that will enable them to articulate and
substantiate behavioral, performance, and physical indicators of
intoxication. As a result of this training, managers and supervisors
can determine the need for an alcohol or other drug test. New
managers and supervisors will receive this training within thirty
(30) days of hire or promotion to the managerial or supervisory
level.

Since
there is a “snitch clause” threatening termination for
non-reporting (see “Reporting Requirements of Employee”,
below), all
PP employees must be provided with this training if that aspect of
the policy is to have any meaning.

Types of
Alcohol and Other Drug Testing to be Instituted

The
University of Oklahoma Physical Plant Alcohol and Other Drug Testing
Policy includes the following types of alcohol and other drug
testing:

Reasonable
Suspicion

An
employee who is reasonably suspected of being under the influence of
alcohol or another prohibited drug while on duty shall undergo an
alcohol or other drug test. When such test is required, two
supervisors and/or an OUPD representative will escort the employee to
the approved testing facility during or immediately after the regular
work period of the employee. The time taken for transportation and
sample collection shall be deemed work time, and the employee shall
be compensated as such. In a timely manner, a urine sample will be
collected to detect the presence of drugs and controlled substances,
and/or a sample of breath or saliva, or blood if no breath or saliva
test is available, will be drawn to detect the presence and level of
alcohol.

Post-Accident
Testing

An alcohol or
other drug test may be required of a Physical Plant employee if there
is reasonable suspicion that the employee or another person has
sustained a work-related injury or if damage has occurred to Physical
Plant or other property as a direct result of the employee’s
use of alcohol or other drugs. When such test is required, two
supervisors and/or an OUPD representative will escort the employee to
the approved testing facility during or immediately after the regular
work period of the employee. The time taken for transportation and
sample collection shall be deemed work time, and the employee shall
be compensated as such. In a timely manner, a urine sample will be
collected to detect the presence of drugs and controlled substances,
and/or a sample of breath or saliva, or blood if not breath or saliva
test is available, will be drawn to detect the presence and level of
alcohol. The alcohol or other drug test(s) will be administered as
soon as possible but no later than thirty-two (32) hours after the
accident.

Post-Rehabilitation

As
a condition of continued employment, an employee who returns to work
following participation in an alcohol or other drug dependency
treatment program or following a confirmed positive alcohol or other
drug test may be required to undergo testing without prior notice for
a period of up to two (2) years commencing with the employee’s
return to work. When such test is required, two supervisors and/or
an OUPD representative will escort the employee to the approved
testing facility during or immediately after the regular work period
of the employee. The time taken for transportation and sample
collection shall be deemed work time, and the employee shall be
compensated as such. In a timely manner, a urine sample will be
collected to detect the presence of drugs and controlled substances,
and/or a sample of breath, saliva, blood, or urine will be drawn to
detect the presence and level of alcohol.

Random
Testing

All
employees within the Physical Plant in a position deemed to be a
safety sensitive position (see definition, number 7) are subject to
random drug and alcohol screening.The Administration area of the Physical Plant shall
randomly select a sample of such employees to be tested on a regular
basis throughout the year. Random testing will be unannounced and
will occur a minimum of twelve times a year.Upon
notification, employees selected for random testing will immediately
proceed to the designated testing site where the appropriate samples
will be collected and tested. The time taken for transportation and
sample collection shall be deemed work time, and the employee shall
be compensated as such.

This
part is really a gem. The first question is who – and I mean
specifically who will be responsible and accountable; the ambiguity
of the phrase “The Administration area” is an obvious
attempt to evade personal accountability – will determine which
employees are in a “Safety-Sensitive Position”? Then
questions come in torrents: Does this really mean that a handful of
selected employees will be tested many times throughout the year? Or
does it mean that, throughout the year, different samples of
employees will be tested? The grammar isn’t clear. Who will
select this random sample? By what method? Will it be a sample with
replacement or without? What safeguards are in place to assure that
managerial bias won’t affect the sample? It seems that, at a
minimum, any random sampling to be done should be done by an outside
entity – such as the OU Poll or the Math Department –
that is skilled with random sampling, to insure that any petty
prejudices of administrators cannot influence the sample.

Also,
the word “screening” is used here for the only time, and
is undefined. The word “testing” should be substituted
for this to make sense.

Applicant
Testing

When
a conditional offer for employment has been extended to an applicant
for a continuous position within Physical Plant, that applicant must
undergo a drug test. The appropriate sample will be collected at the
approved testing facility and tested for prohibited drugs.
Employment of the tested applicant will be conditional upon receipt
of negative test results. An applicant’s refusal to undergo
testing or a confirmed positive test result shall be sufficient basis
for revocation of the conditional offer for employment.

Prohibited
Substances

Prohibited
substances addressed by this policy include but are not limited to
the following:

Amphetamines Marijuana
and other cannabinoid

Cocaine Phencyclidine
(PCP) and other hallucinogens

Opiates Alcohol
(ethyl alcohol or ethanol)

Barbiturates Synthetic
narcotics and designer drugs

Benzodiazepines

Any
metabolite of the above listed substances

This
quest for “metabolites” is disturbing. It is the
strongest evidence yet that this policy is not aimed at job safety or
performance, but rather an attempt to control what employees do on
their own time, and to purge any employees that dare to defy the
authority of the Nanny State. The metabolites for most substances
remain in the body for days and sometimes weeks beyond any
pharmacological effect. So, an employee who is ready and able to work
well and safely could be terminated because he smoked pot with his
friends over the weekend, or because she took a few of her sister’s
Lortabs or Valium because her husband and kids were driving her
crazy. Again, OU needs to decide whether it is a police agency or an
academic institution.

Prohibited
Conduct

Any
employee engaging in the manufacture, distribution, possession, or
use of prohibited substances on University property, in University
vehicles, or while in the conduct of University business will be
subject to immediate discharge. Law enforcement will be notified, as
appropriate, where criminal activity is suspected. Furthermore, the
off-duty sale, distribution, possession with intent to distribute, or
manufacture of illegal drugs by a Physical Plant employee resulting
in a criminal conviction shall be grounds for immediate termination
of employment.

Testing for
Prohibited Substances

Medical
personnel at an approved testing facility who are certified by the
State Board of Health will coordinate all alcohol and other drug
tests required of Physical Plant applicants or employees. A chain of
custody through the testing facility will be implemented to ensure
the integrity of the test, the security of the sample, and the
confidentiality of each individual being tested.

The
alcohol or other drug test will be for policy compliance only and
will not be used for criminal prosecution. Failure to comply with
the order to provide sample as required under this policy shall
result in the employee’s immediate termination. The individual
being tested must cooperate fully with the laboratory staff during
the sample collection. Failure to do so will result in the
employee’s immediate termination. An attempt to tamper with a
sample will also be sufficient basis for the employee’s
immediate termination.

Employees
are strongly encouraged to reportany
observation or knowledge of another employee who may be in a
condition, which impairs his or her ability to perform assigned job
duties, or poses a hazard to the safety and welfare of persons and/or
property. The observing employee should promptly report the incident
to the immediate supervisor, or any other supervisor should the
immediate supervisor not be available. If a supervisor deems an
alcohol or other drug test necessary as a result of this report, the
aforementioned procedures will be followed.

In
other words, “We encourage you to spy and snitch on your fellow
employees.” Of what does this strong encouragement consist?
Will rewards, kudos, or promotions be offered for those who ferret
out miscreants? This kind of boilerplate is really irritating. Most
PP employees work in teams, and if someone isn’t carrying their
share of the workload or is otherwise goofing off they’ll hear
about it immediately from their peers. Also, if the work isn’t
getting done properly and efficiently, the Supervisor should be aware
of it. This encouragement of spying is a very poor tactic if one
wishes to maintain trust between employees, or between workers and
supervisors.

Interpretation
of Test Results

Should
an applicant’s or employee’s initial alcohol or other
drug test be reported as positive for any of the prohibited
substances, a confirmation test will be conducted on the same sample.
A State Board of Health approved test of equal or greater accuracy
than the initial test will be used to confirm a positive alcohol or
other drug test. If a positive test result is confirmed through this
procedure and the Medical Review Officer has deemed the results
positive, this shall be grounds for immediate termination of
employment by reason of misconduct, or in the case of a prospective
employee, the conditional employment offer to the applicant will be
withdrawn.In the case of a confirmed
positive test the applicant or employee has the right to
confidentially explain the test results to the Director or Assistant
Director of Physical Plant.

What
is this supposed to mean? The policy states that an employee will be
fired for a confirmed positive test. Period. What good does it do to
“confidentially explain” the results? Does the Director
or Assistant Director have the authority to override this policy in
favor of certain employees? On what basis? Where are the guidelines
for exceptions? Are we to accept that Directors and AD’s have
the wisdom and understanding to decide such things from the seat of
their pants, choosing to keep one employee and terminating the next,
based on their own judgment – in secret and without review? The
notion is absurd, discriminatory, and probably illegal.

This
is an open invitation to corruption. Imagine that a favored employee
just happens to get caught with the metabolites for pot or crank in
his system after a week’s vacation. Does he get to “explain”
this to the Director or AD and get a free pass? What about the
employee in the same position, who works well, but has been heard
grumbling about management decisions?

Employees
have the option of requesting in writing that an additional test for
prohibited substances be performed on the same
sample. The
employee’s request for such test must be made within
seventy-two (72) hours of notice of the confirmed positive test
result. Requests made after seventy-two (72) hours will be accepted
only if the delay were due to documentable facts that were beyond the
control of the employee. This additional test must be performed at a
Board of Health certified laboratory. When the employee requests an
additional test be performed in order to challenge the results of a
positive test, the employee shall pay all costs of the retest before
the retest is performed. If the retest finds the results positive,
the employee’s termination will stand. If the retest reverses
the findings of the challenged positive test, Physical Plant will
reimburse the employee for the costs of the retest, and the employee
will be reinstated to his or her position.

Refusal
to Submit to a Required Drug or Alcohol Test

Any
employee who refuses to comply with a request for testing, who
provides false information in connection with a test, or who attempts
to falsify test results through tampering, contamination,
adulteration or substitution shall be removed from duty immediately.
A verbal or written refusal to provide a required specimen or to sign
required testing forms will be considered a refusal to test. A
refusal can also include an inability to provide a specific sample
without a valid medical explanation, as well as a verbal declaration,
obstructive behavior, or physical absence resulting in the inability
to conduct the test. Upon notification of the requirement to test,
the employee must proceed immediately to the collection site. The
failure to arrive at the collection site in a timely manner after
notification of the requirement to test will be considered a refusal
to test. Refusal to submit to requested drug testing, attempts to
falsify test results, or providing false information constitutes a
verified positive screen and will result in termination.

Reporting
Responsibilities of Employee

Employees must report the use of
medically authorized drugs or other substances which may impair job
performance to his/her immediate supervisor and provide proper
medical authorization from his/her physician.

The failure to report the use of
such drugs or other substances as specified above, or the failure to
provide proper medical evidence of medical authorization, shall
result in disciplinary action up to and including termination of
employment. It is the employee’s responsibility to determine
from his or her physician/practitioner whether or not the drug or
substance would impair job performance.

Apparently
those who did (or didn’t do) the research for this hadn’t
heard of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (HIPAA). It is highly probable that the above requirements are a
direct violation of Federal law.

It is also the responsibility of
an employee who observes or has knowledge of another employee in a
condition which impairs his/her ability to perform his/her job
duties, or poses a hazard to the safety and welfare of him/herself,
the public, other employees or equipment, to promptly report the
incident to his or her immediate supervisor or any other supervisor
should his/her immediate supervisor not be available. Failure to
make such reports will result in disciplinary action up to and
including termination.

Here
comes another “snitch clause”, only this time with teeth.
Now we are not only “encouraged” to snitch on our fellow
employees, but are threatened with termination if we don’t.
Unless all
PP employees receive regular training in detecting behaviors
indicating intoxication by all
of the listed prohibited substances, this requirement is patently
absurd. Does the PP intend to make all of its employees arms of the
police?

Appeal
Procedures, Remedies, and Sanctions

Any Physical
Plant employee against whom disciplinary action is taken may appeal
the action by expressing a grievanceaccording
to The University of Oklahoma Staff Handbook section 3.23, Staff
Grievance Policy. Any appeal made shall be subject to the terms of
Staff Grievance policy, and the remedies or sanctions determined by
the appropriate provost or vice president shall be final. However,
receipt of a second positive test shall be grounds for denial of
future consideration.

It
is not generally understood that an employee cannot file a Grievance
against an established policy, but only against a misuse of policy.
Once this policy goes into effect, its requirements cannot be
modified by Grievance. The only time to modify or reject an unwise or
discriminatory policy is before it’s implemented. Thus the
present commentary.

Any
Physical Plant applicant who tests positive for prohibited substances
may reapply for a position at Physical Plant after a reasonable
period or after not less than six months. However, receipt of a
second positive test shall be grounds for denial of future
consideration.

Employees’
Rights to Records

An
employee covered by this policy is entitled, upon written request to
the Physical Plant, to obtain copies of any records pertaining to
his/her use of prohibited drugs, including any records pertaining to
his/her drug tests.

Confidentiality

The Physical
Plant Personnel office shall maintain all alcohol and other drug test
results, records, and related information as confidential records
separate from other personnel records in accordance with The
University of Oklahoma Staff Handbook section 3.14. These records
shall be the property of The University of Oklahoma and, upon the
request of the applicant or employee tested, shall be made available
to that individual for inspection and copying. The Physical Plant
Personnel office shall not release these records to any person other
than the individual who was tested unless that individual grants
permission in writing following the receipt of the test results or as
otherwise may be required by law.

Medical
information apart from a positive or negative prohibited alcohol or
other drug presence and information related to that result will not
be reported to any Physical Plant personnel. Furthermore, the
presence of any drug not listed in the “Prohibited Substances”
section of this Policy shall not be reported. However, the testing
facility shall release the results of the alcohol or other drug test
and any analysis and any information related thereto to the tested
individual upon his or her request.

Subordination to Other Laws

All provisions of this policy
are subordinate to all applicable Federal and State laws or
administrative regulations.

If
those who authored this revision really understood this, they would
have spent their time doing more productive things.

Employee
Assistance Program

In
an effort to assist employees who have a chemical dependence on
alcohol or other controlled substances, The University of Oklahoma
offers an Employee Assistance Program that is prepared to provide
professional assistance in resolving abuse problems. This program is
intended for employees who voluntarily submit themselves for
professional assistance. If an employee is found working while under
the influence of a prohibited substance, he or she is subject to
disciplinary action; therefore, it is in the employee’s best
interest to voluntarily seek assistance.

Chemical
dependence is harmful not only to the health and well-being of the
chemically dependent person but also to those who care about that
person. If youuse
any of the prohibited substances listed in this policy or ifyoudrink
alcohol excessively or cannot controlyourdrinking, please take
advantage of this Employee Assistance Program. Assistance is only a
phone call away.

So,
now we have a change from the impersonal language of policy to the
personal language of care and concern. Not only is this language
inconsistent in switching from third to second person, but, in this
context, a fine example of the rhetoric of the “Iron fist in a
velvet glove”.

Policy
Distribution

The
Physical Plant Alcohol and Other Drug Testing Policy will be posted
on the bulletin board in Logistics Support at all times and written
copies distributed to all continuous employees, present and future.

Contact
Person

Any
questions regarding this policy should be addressed either to the
employee’s direct supervisor or to the following
representative:

Assistant
Director, Administration and Operations

OU
Physical Plant

160
Felgar Street

Norman,
Oklahoma 73019

(405)
325-6212

For
an alternate representative, contact the Physical Plant Director’s
Office at (405) 325-6211.

Waiver

Should
the regulations concerning mandatory drug testing issued by the OU
Physical Plant or any parts or portions thereof or any provisions of
the Physical Plant Alcohol and Other Drug Testing Policy be found to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such provisions shall be rendered
null and void and cease to be effective.

Concluding
remarks

It
would be interesting to know the reason why this policy change has
been proposed. Has there been a rash of accidents due to drug or
alcohol use? Have Physical Plant employees been found wandering
around campus in a drugged or drunken stupor? Or, as seems more
likely, are there just too many long-haired, blue-jean and t-shirt
wearing plumbers, carpenters, masons, electricians and custodians? It
looks a lot like an attempt by Inquisitors in Suits to suppress
working class people with an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

This
policy revision is discriminatory as well as being unjustified. All
OU
employees and students can pose a threat to the safety of persons and
property when they’re intoxicated. It is clear that this policy
change is aimed only at those PP employees who work in the field,
leaving untouched and unthreatened the thousands of other staff
members, students, and faculty members – many of whom regularly
engage in inherently dangerous tasks.

If
the Physical Plant Administration is seriously interested in safer
worker performance, then it should use performance-based testing
methods when intoxication is suspected, rather than the
highly-invasive methods proposed. A Google search of “performance
based testing” shows 11,200,000 hits. I should think that at
least .001% of those hits would be from reputable foundations or
academic institutions with departments dedicated to developing quick,
easy, and inexpensive ways to check any employee’s performance
level, anytime.

I’m
sure that every OUPD Officer is trained in the simple coordination
tests used to determine drunkenness at a traffic stop. I’m also
sure that there are other simple tests available for such things as
reaction time, critical thinking, and coordination that would measure
job performance readiness without the expense and violation of
privacy inherent in chemical testing. If the policy that has been in
place for the past ten years seems somehow inadequate, performance
testing is even more effective than chemical testing, and is much
less draconian.

The
people of Oklahoma and the United States are beginning to fear that
their leaders are failing them. This policy proposal does nothing to
allay that fear. It is ill-conceived, poorly written and violates
both the trust inherent in the phrase “OU Family” and the
spirit of American civilization. It should be rejected by anyone with
the authority to do so.

Respectfully
submitted,

Robert
Murphy

Hourly
Employees Council

PS
If this critique seems to harsh to some, I apologize and blame it on
my own chemical dependency. I am taking a drug called Chantix to help
me quit smoking, and instead of causing depression and suicidal
thoughts as it does in some people, I have found that it merely
amplifies my natural Scots-Irish belligerence in the face of
perceived injustice (for more on this see Sen. James Webb’s
book - Born
Fighting).

Of
course, the most annoying thing about this matter is that the
probability approaches certainty that the semi-literate incompetents
who penned and approved this policy revision are getting paid at
least three times my salary.